F2012 Nose, final or not? your view!

Please answer and explain why!!!

Ps: Be polite and respect each other's arguments, thank you!

"I cannot judge what he did in his time at Renault and McLaren but I have worked with World Champions Schumacher, Villeneuve and Raikkonen and Fernando is the one who impresses me the most," said Gene.

I am just posting this poll because something does not make sense to me. Why go for a pull rod suspension system which would in theory allow a front end shape described by scarbs erasing that bump when you could go for a push rod system and gain significant pressure with higher rod attachment/bulkhead???

"I cannot judge what he did in his time at Renault and McLaren but I have worked with World Champions Schumacher, Villeneuve and Raikkonen and Fernando is the one who impresses me the most," said Gene.

I am just posting this poll because something does not make sense to me. Why go for a pull rod suspension system which would in theory allow a front end shape described by scarbs erasing that bump when you could go for a push rod system and gain significant pressure with higher rod attachment/bulkhead???

"I cannot judge what he did in his time at Renault and McLaren but I have worked with World Champions Schumacher, Villeneuve and Raikkonen and Fernando is the one who impresses me the most," said Gene.

I think that it might change as we use pull rod and like everyone's saying there is too much space but im not a designer nor a mechanic so i don't know for sure .Im pleased with the car seems to be better than our previous 150 Italia.Does anyone know why we aren't using the " V " style nose?Thanks in advance

Right now, I have a concern that the bump may have been unintended. Here's why.

Firstly, I think Ferrari aimed for a smaller front nose, lower top to meet the specification, but without having to lower the bottom side. The reason why I'm guessing this is because of how compact our front suspension is. If we intended that bump, we could just settled for push rod like everyone else so far. Instead, we went for pull rod, which can help reduce the space above the mount (push rod have its suspension rod attached higher than the wheel mount). Yet we fit the push rod suspension to no lower than the lower mount. This results in a more compact front wheel suspension system.

So why did we ended up with such a high bulkhead, higher than the nose cone which results in that ugly bump?
Its a mystery but this is just my wild guess.

Imagine of we did not have that bump. The cross section at the front end of the bulk head will be as large as the nose cone inner cross section, right. While the thin nose should crumple upon impact, the front end of the bulkhead needs to survive a frontal impact, and this is tested during the FIA crash test.

Now, the smaller the area of impact is, the more focused the force would be so the material needs to be stronger to withstand the impact. Imagine if you have a very sharp pencil. Its very easy to break the tip when you knock it on a table because all the impact force is focused on a small point. If you cut the pencil in the middle, now the area becomes very wide and you can knock it as hard as you can and it may not break at all.

With that in mind, what if, the original cross section was TOO small that the structure was not strong enough to pass the FIA crash test? Remember the rumor we heard about Ferrari failing the first test? If we indeed failed the frontal impact crash test, then one solution would be to increase the cross section area again to the more traditional design.

So, consequently, we ended up with such a compact front suspension, but without the bulkhead to take advantage of it.

This is just a wild guess anyway.

Why Ferrari did not curve it in the middle to allow the air to slip through like Lotus and Force India did, that's strange to me too. Our bump looks rather crude.

I love how suddenly people became aerodynamicist and started panicking.

I'm no aerodynamicist and I'm not panicking, just wandering?

And I like how it looks too!!

"I cannot judge what he did in his time at Renault and McLaren but I have worked with World Champions Schumacher, Villeneuve and Raikkonen and Fernando is the one who impresses me the most," said Gene.

Imagine of we did not have that bump. The cross section at the front end of the bulk head will be as large as the nose cone inner cross section, right. While the thin nose should crumple upon impact, the front end of the bulkhead needs to survive a frontal impact, and this is tested during the FIA crash test.

Very good point, thanks a lot indeed, I appreciate the developed argument!

"I cannot judge what he did in his time at Renault and McLaren but I have worked with World Champions Schumacher, Villeneuve and Raikkonen and Fernando is the one who impresses me the most," said Gene.

Right now, I have a concern that the bump may have been unintended. Here's why.

Firstly, I think Ferrari aimed for a smaller front nose, lower top to meet the specification, but without having to lower the bottom side. The reason why I'm guessing this is because of how compact our front suspension is. If we intended that bump, we could just settled for push rod like everyone else so far. Instead, we went for pull rod, which can help reduce the space above the mount (push rod have its suspension rod attached higher than the wheel mount). Yet we fit the push rod suspension to no lower than the lower mount. This results in a more compact front wheel suspension system.

So why did we ended up with such a high bulkhead, higher than the nose cone which results in that ugly bump?
Its a mystery but this is just my wild guess.

Imagine of we did not have that bump. The cross section at the front end of the bulk head will be as large as the nose cone inner cross section, right. While the thin nose should crumple upon impact, the front end of the bulkhead needs to survive a frontal impact, and this is tested during the FIA crash test.

Now, the smaller the area of impact is, the more focused the force would be so the material needs to be stronger to withstand the impact. Imagine if you have a very sharp pencil. Its very easy to break the tip when you knock it on a table because all the impact force is focused on a small point. If you cut the pencil in the middle, now the area becomes very wide and you can knock it as hard as you can and it may not break at all.

With that in mind, what if, the original cross section was TOO small that the structure was not strong enough to pass the FIA crash test? Remember the rumor we heard about Ferrari failing the first test? If we indeed failed the frontal impact crash test, then one solution would be to increase the cross section area again to the more traditional design.

So, consequently, we ended up with such a compact front suspension, but without the bulkhead to take advantage of it.

This is just a wild guess anyway.

Why Ferrari did not curve it in the middle to allow the air to slip through like Lotus and Force India did, that's strange to me too. Our bump looks rather crude.

SO would they really try and make everyone to belive that they have an aerogain due to this suspension as Tombazis say in the clip?

i think they will change,its because mclaren proves it,like they can have a solution like f-duct,and ferrari will change the chassis i think i know im been ignore but if ferrari has a secret weapon,chassis will be change it,and that car that we see is just a dummy,i think a 2012 prototype, the actual face of the car is unknown,sorry to my words i predict mclaren has a plan in making the u-pod again if they succeed its a treat to ferrari,i hoping that ferrari will change ther chasssis in test because its like 2011 to me, sorry to my word im not please with that car top to bottom

i think the will change,it because mclaran proves it,like they can have a solution like f-duct,and ferrari will change the chassis i think i know im been ignore but if ferrari has a secret weapon,chassis will be change,and that car that we see is just a dummy,i think a 2012 prototype, the actual face of the car is unknown,sorry to my words i predict mclaren has a plan in making the u-pod again if they succeed its a treat to ferrari,i hoping that ferrari will change ther chasssis in test because its like 2011 to me, sorry to my word im not please with that car top to bottom

why would they change it to be like McLaren? McLaren have probably done it wrong.

SO would they really try and make everyone to belive that they have an aerogain due to this suspension as Tombazis say in the clip?

Well, the underside of the nose remains high so that could be the aero gain he was referring too. But anyway I doubt the team will really explain to us why they ended up with what we saw today, teams can't expose their design technique, at least not until the car is no longer used

why would they change it to be like McLaren? McLaren have probably done it wrong.

sorry if im wrong,but i believe that mclaren could be right,i have the feeling that mclaren could make a design like what they did in f-duct,but i believing that ferrari could make an innovative front wing if they want too im just hoping that ferrari will make change to the design of the car after the test before the race,maybe ferarri has a innovative design like what other does.

Right now, I have a concern that the bump may have been unintended. Here's why.

Firstly, I think Ferrari aimed for a smaller front nose, lower top to meet the specification, but without having to lower the bottom side. The reason why I'm guessing this is because of how compact our front suspension is. If we intended that bump, we could just settled for push rod like everyone else so far. Instead, we went for pull rod, which can help reduce the space above the mount (push rod have its suspension rod attached higher than the wheel mount). Yet we fit the push rod suspension to no lower than the lower mount. This results in a more compact front wheel suspension system.

So why did we ended up with such a high bulkhead, higher than the nose cone which results in that ugly bump?
Its a mystery but this is just my wild guess.

Imagine of we did not have that bump. The cross section at the front end of the bulk head will be as large as the nose cone inner cross section, right. While the thin nose should crumple upon impact, the front end of the bulkhead needs to survive a frontal impact, and this is tested during the FIA crash test.

Now, the smaller the area of impact is, the more focused the force would be so the material needs to be stronger to withstand the impact. Imagine if you have a very sharp pencil. Its very easy to break the tip when you knock it on a table because all the impact force is focused on a small point. If you cut the pencil in the middle, now the area becomes very wide and you can knock it as hard as you can and it may not break at all.

With that in mind, what if, the original cross section was TOO small that the structure was not strong enough to pass the FIA crash test? Remember the rumor we heard about Ferrari failing the first test? If we indeed failed the frontal impact crash test, then one solution would be to increase the cross section area again to the more traditional design.

So, consequently, we ended up with such a compact front suspension, but without the bulkhead to take advantage of it.

This is just a wild guess anyway.

Why Ferrari did not curve it in the middle to allow the air to slip through like Lotus and Force India did, that's strange to me too. Our bump looks rather crude.

How about no.

It has nothing to do with the crash test. The chassis design is final way before the first crash test. When the chassis failed the first crash test, the chassis had already been that way, that ugly shape. The only thing they can do to the chassis is to add strength, which only adds a negligible weight. The shape didn't change even a little. The carbon fibre thickness, lay-up and curing is re-assessed to obtain the intended maximum strength and rigidity with minimum weight.

The crash structure/the nose can look better throughout the season. But for chassis, no.

That pull-rod look to have a very small travel, which means a really stiff front suspension. We can see McLaren had been running stiff front, soft rear suspension for the last 2 years and the car have a very poor stability and poor braking under bumps. Lewis addressed that to the engineers and their front suspension this year looks even more promising.

Lets hope that the pull-rod will turn out ok and the problem of heating the tires is gone. Tombazis said the pull-rod retained the characteristics and behaviour of a push rod. But I can't see the aero benefit brought by the pull-rod. It may save a little/negligible weight and size, but a good mechanical grip is all. A good suspension is everything, the best aero can't save a bad suspension.

If not, fernando and felipe will be driving like in the wet again, driving defensive and all over the place in Melbourne like last season.

It has nothing to do with the crash test. The chassis design is final way before the first crash test. When the chassis failed the first crash test, the chassis had already been that way, that ugly shape. The only thing they can do to the chassis is to add strength, which only adds a negligible weight. The shape didn't change even a little. The carbon fibre thickness, lay-up and curing is re-assessed to obtain the intended maximum strength and rigidity with minimum weight.

The crash structure/the nose can look better throughout the season. But for chassis, no.

Thanks for the correction on the crash test remedy.

So with that out of the picture, we can only assume that Ferrari indeed intentionally design the front nose to be that way. Thats very puzzling to me, hopefully we hear more opinions about why they might have design it that way

compare the f10 front with the f2010 you can see that at the front suspension it's cleaner, that's what Tombazis is talking about aero benefits...The suspension are not making a X on the f2012 where with the f10 there was...

About the the bulk, it think it will change not dramatically but it will change, where the nose de-attaches is a bit behind the bulk, so they can make a groove or something there...
But where we will see the most changes will be at the back, the exhaust will change...

why would they change it to be like McLaren? McLaren have probably done it wrong.

My thoughts exactly.

Can't really beleave that our whole team full of aerodynamic speciallists could actually make a mistake, that some people here point out. IMO, the car is far from something we'll see at the first race, and some new parts that have something to do with our *cough* beautiful *cough* nose and the emtyness under it will come up. Don't really think we would show everything we got in the presentation.

I'm actually happy to see people confused about our nose. It means Ferrari has done great with hidding what we got

PS. Nice to finally come back here after the break and see some movement again BRING ON 2012 season!